Autostereoscopic display with planar pass-through

ABSTRACT

A method and system for presenting both autostereoscopic images and planar images in a single display is disclosed. The design comprises processing the planar images received in the form of planar image data. The processing comprises at least one from a group comprising selectively employing bleed-through processing to enhance the planar image data when viewed through a lens sheet comprising slanted lenticules, selectively introducing blurring into the planar image data, and selectively employing anti-alias processing to the planar image data. Certain super pixels may be computed that differ from standard pixels, and lenticules in the data sheet may be slanted at desired angles. The physical lenticules may cause bleed-through that may be processed. Resolution may be computed after processing, and the resolution implemented for display. Mode switching between planar and autostereoscopic imaging may be provided in the form of Metadata or visible flags.

This application is a continuation application of and claims priority toU.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/400,958 filed Apr. 7, 2006 entitled“Autostereoscopic Display with Planar Pass-Through” that claims thebenefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/669,818entitled “Autostereoscopic Display with Planar Pass-Through” filed Apr.8, 2005, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to the art of electronicautostereoscopic flat panel displays and more specifically to producinghigh quality moving images in both in the stereoscopic and planar(non-stereoscopic) modes on an electronic autostereoscopic flat paneldisplay.

2. Description of the Related Art

An autostereoscopic display, in particular the kind using a microlensarray in order to be of general usefulness, must function in both theautostereoscopic and planar modes. The problem that faces the designeris that the microlens array, with its multiplicity of refractiveelements, while producing an autostereoscopic image in association withproperly encoded or mapped data, will reduce the effective resolution ofthe display when planar data is viewed. The usefulness in the planarmode is so compromised that performance is unacceptable.

As used herein, the terms “lens sheet,” “lenticular screen”, or “lensscreen” are used synonymously, and an individual microlens element issometimes called a lenticule, lenticle, or a lenslet.

In the current state of autostereoscopic displays, a need exists forapplications such as autostereoscopic digital signage. Such a designwould preferably produce a good quality planar result, allowing theowner of such digital signage equipment to play her legacy planarcontent. In addition, a computer desktop monitor configuredappropriately can be used for typical planar applications such as wordprocessing, and also used for autostereoscopic visualizationapplications. The technology can be applied to a television receiver sothat current planar content can be enjoyed at one moment, and at thenext, autostereoscopic images may be viewed without the user having tolift a finger.

Certain assumptions are made throughout this disclosure. First, thedisclosure assumes the use of a flat panel, typically a liquid crystalor a plasma display, but other types are also to be considered withoutany loss of generality, such as organic light-emitting diodes. And,although this discussion assumes the use of a refractive microlensarray, this disclosure also applies to a raster barrier selectiondevice.

Certain designers have suggested features that would allow anautostereoscopic display to function equally well in both theautostereoscopic mode and the planar mode. The most obvious is to use aremovable microlens array. Such an array is a flat sheet made up of amultiplicity of lenslets, and can usually be removed from its positionin intimate contact with the display surface. One concern with thisapproach is achieving proper juxtaposition of the array with respect tothe underlying display. Once returned to the display surface, each lenselement must be precisely aligned with its associated sub-pixel. Inaddition, many users find storing the lens sheet inconvenient. Bothstorage and alignment are factors of concern, and the solution issomewhat inelegant.

A method for overcoming the alignment concerns raised by the removablelens sheet approach involves the use of a supplemental refractivelyneutralizing lens sheet which has negative-going or convex shapedlenslets which, when placed in juxtaposition with the primary lenssheet, neutralize the effects of the lens sheet. The benefit of thisapproach is that there are no alignment issues with regard to theprimary microlens array. However, the process of placing and removingthe lens sheet is hardly transparent to the user and generallyinconvenient.

Yet another solution is an electro-optically switchable lens sheet. Sucha lens sheet is able to turn on and off the refractive properties of thelenticules using a specially designed liquid crystal cell. Thelenticules are formed on the inside of the cell. The refractiveproperties of the cell may be neutralized by electro-optically changingthe refractive property of the liquid crystal material. Such an elegantapproach involves the use of two liquid crystal displays, the variableelectro-optical microlens array itself and the image forming display.Such an arrangement will substantially increase the cost of the product,but if properly implemented and realized, such a design can betransparent to the user.

The manufacturer Sharp Electronics Corporation produces autostereoscopicdisplay products using two liquid cells. The selection device in certainSharp products lies between the display proper and the light source andforms a switchable inverted raster barrier device. The liquid crystalshutter forms parallel ruling that is turned on or off in theautostereoscopic and planar modes respectively. In present designs, theSharp device uses only two views and suffers from a tiny viewing zone,which is very undesirable. The Sharp design uses two liquid cells inoptical series, has the disadvantage of increased cost, and suffers fromreduced brightness.

These solutions, and others like them, have been proposed in theliterature because designers have sought a display that functions inboth in the autostereoscopic and the planar modes and exhibits excellentoverall viewing characteristics and ease of use. For the reasons givenabove, previously available displays may not be entirely practical interms of price and performance.

Such a display may well be used with a desktop PC, in which case themicrolens array will need to pass through fine text and icons. Forexample, a minimum resolution requirement for a decent quality desktopmonitor is on the order of 1080×1024 pixels, at a minimum. Certain usersmay not be happy with this and would require something more like1280×1024 pixels, or higher. In the realm of the home television, themaximum display requirement is 1920×1080 to conform to the highestquality HDTV mode.

It would therefore be desirable to offer an autostereoscopic displaycapable producing both a high quality autostereoscopic image and a highquality planar image that overcomes the design issues associated withprevious designs. Such a design may minimize user effort and may berealized at lower cost.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to one aspect of the present design, there is provided amethod for presenting both autostereoscopic images and planar images ina single display. The method comprises processing the planar imagesreceived in the form of planar image data. The processing comprises atleast one from a group comprising selectively employing bleed-throughprocessing to enhance the planar image data when viewed through a lenssheet comprising slanted lenticules, selectively introducing blurringinto the planar image data, and selectively employing anti-aliasprocessing to the planar image data.

These and other advantages of the present invention will become apparentto those skilled in the art from the following detailed description ofthe invention and the accompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a flat panel monitor with a microlens array mountedthereon;

FIG. 2 shows the microlens array and its relation to the underlyingdisplay pixels;

FIG. 3 illustrates the operation of a lenticular microlens, with lightrays following paths from the pixels into viewing space;

FIG. 4 illustrates the effects of digital blurring and anti-aliasedscaling on a typical bitmapped alphanumeric character;

FIG. 5 shows how sub-lenticular zones, which are slanted sections of themicrolens, cross a grid of display pixels;

FIGS. 6A-6B demonstrate how a slight change in the optical properties ofthe microlens changes the nature of the image data transmitted throughthe microlens;

FIG. 7 is similar to FIG. 5 but shows enlarged pixels illustrating howlarger pixels results in more sub-lenticular zones crossing over eachpixel;

FIG. 8 shows how on-image flagging can be used to help a device orsoftware process differentiate between planar and stereoscopic imagedata; and

FIG. 9 illustrates a general conceptual overview of operation of thedesign.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present design comprises a combination of optical and softwaretechniques providing a low cost device for passing a high quality planarimage through the microlens array of an autostereoscopic display. Thetransition from one mode to the other will be automatic and transparentto the user. As used in this description, the technology to pass aquality image to the user is called “planar pass-through” or simply“pass-through.”

Any flat panel display has a “native resolution”, by which is meant theactual pixel count in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. Flat paneldisplays, unlike their CRT precursors, have a fixed resolutioncapability and rely on image scaling in order to match a variety ofresolution images to the display. The microlens array serves to modulatethe native resolution of the flat panel display, while enablingstereoscopic capability, effectively reducing resolution for planarapplications.

The lenslets of the microlens array or lens sheet are of a well knowndesign: they are typically cylindrical lenslets, such as those describedby Lipton et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 6,850,210, “Parallax PanoramagramHaving Improved Depth and Sharpness.” Indeed, as noted above, theselection device could be of a raster barrier design without loss ofgenerality. The lens sheet modulates the characteristics of the lightrays emerging from the display panel because of its multi-facetedrefractive properties, and in the planar mode the resulting resolutionis consequently reduced. The present design seeks to mitigate thisreduction in resolution. One aspect of the design comprises a monitorwith high enough native resolution so that, after applying appropriateoptical and software techniques, a desired planar resolution pass-thoughcan be achieved. This is only one part of the total solution.

One other part of the solution, specifically for the SynthaGram™product, manufactured by StereoGraphics Corporation, is achieved byturning on or off the Interzig algorithm in the SynthaGram™. Thisalgorithm employed in the SynthaGram™ maps multiple perspectives byselecting or sampling pixel elements of each perspective view andarranging these in a form that coincides with or corresponds to therequirements of a particular microlens array. Interzig isStereoGraphics' proprietary algorithm for what has been known variouslyand generically in the literature as interdigitation, interlacing, orinterleaving.

Rather than transmit a mapped autostereoscopic image, the present designtransmits the separate perspective views in one file following aspecific format protocol. In the case of the SynthaGram™, the systemtransmits nine perspective views in what is called the “Nine-Tileformat”. These nine perspective views, when viewed on a planar monitor,look like a tic-tac-toe arrangement of views. This arrangement has thevirtue of being compressible while preserving perspective information.Once the image is Interzigged it cannot be compressed by any knownmeans. Therefore the Nine-Tile format promotes transmission and movieplayback. The SynthaGram™ Player, the device that plays the Interziggedimage or images, is based on Microsoft's Direct Show technology. Thisarchitecture allows for handling of Nine-Tile content in a wide range offile formats and compression schemes. The Player also uses the DirectXgraphics Application Programming Interface to efficiently perform theInterzig algorithm. Moreover, the mapping parameters of Interzig aretypically matched to a particular monitor model based on the model'sspecific pixel structure and the microlens array design. Thereforetransmitting an image in the Nine-Tile format is monitor invariant. Whenplayed back by the SynthaGram™ Player, Interzig can be turned on or offeither at will or using indexing, either concealed within the imageitself or by means of metadata.

The present design is independent of the number of perspective views,and is likewise independent of the Microsoft tools referenced (DirectShow and Direct X). Moreover, the actual Interzig function could bereplaced by another autostereogram producing algorithm and other meanscould be provided for switching between autostereoscopic and planarfunctionality. Thus while terms such as “Interzig” and “Nine-Tile” areused herein, it is to be understood that these represent the functionsdescribed above and are not application, configuration, or proprietarysoftware specific and that other tools or configurations may be used toeffectuate the functionality discussed.

A tool such as the Interzig mapping program may look at multiple imageperspective views, such as nine image perspective views, or tiles, andperforms a mapping function, described above, in real time. The mappingfunction works in concert with a particular specific lens sheet. Theparticular microlens array beneficially optimizes the autostereoscopiceffect based on parameters of pitch, focal length, and Winnek angle, ω.The Winnek angle is defined as the angle between the lenticular“boundary axes” and the vertical edge of the display. The term“lenticular axis” is frequently employed in place of boundary axes. Theboundary axes are formed by the lines of intersection of the arcs of theabutting cylindrical lenslets. Hence, the axes form a series of parallellines. The pitch of the semi-cylindrical lenslets is defined in adirection perpendicular to the boundary axes and is given as thedistance between lenticular axes. In the traditional lenticularstereoscopic display, sometimes called a panoramagram, the boundary axesare parallel to the vertical edge of the display.

Once the Interzig algorithm or similar algorithm is initiated, theprogram performs the mapping function and an image is mapped forautostereoscopic purposes. If the user chooses to omit the mappingfunction, or if the code omits the mapping function, Interzig can beturned off. Once the Interzig function is disabled, no autostereoscopicprocessing of the received signal occurs, and the data file can beperceived as a planar image. Such planar transmission and display canoccur provided that rather than presenting data in the Nine-Tile format,image information is presented in the traditional full frame singleimage format.

In the present design, planar resolution, modulated by the lens sheet,is functionally related to the pitch of the lens sheet, the Winnekangle, and the display's native planar resolution. The impact of thenative resolution on the pass-through relationship is not insignificant,and the higher the native resolution the better the planar transmissionand viewing result.

The finer the pitch, or the greater the number of lenslets per linearunit of measure, the higher the potential pass-through resolution of thedevice. But it is also possible, in another limiting case, to have verylarge lenticules, and in one limiting case the lenticule is the samewidth as the display. Such a lens sheet design passes through an imagenot compromised in terms of resolution but with an altered aspect ratio,because the horizontal focal length of the lenticule functions as amagnifier.

Designing for the optimum autostereoscopic effect may produce a conflictwith the requirements for pass-through, but often this is not the casesince larger lenticules tend to exacerbate diagonal anomalies called“jaggies”, so the design requirements for autostereoscopic and planarresults may be similar or may coincide. Another optical factor thataffects pass-through is the proximity of the lens elements to thedisplay surface, and the medium (plastic, air gap, etc.) between thelens elements and the display surface. Other aspects of the lens design,such as focal length and the related lenslet radius, may also impact thepass-through capability of the image.

Although the pass-through resolution may be specified by objectivemeasurement, in a display system the final arbiter of image quality isthe eye-brain of the viewer. Nowhere else is this subjective assessmentfelt more strongly than in the employment of the Winnek technique,described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,409,351, in which the lenticular axis is nolonger set orthogonal to the vertical edges of the rectangular display,but rather is tipped at some angle to mitigate moiré and promoteequalization of resolution in the vertical and horizontal dimensions.

The Winnek angle is employed because if the microlens array lenticularaxis is orthogonal to the horizontal edge of the display the result ismarked color banding due to horizontal magnification of subpixels, aneffect which is undesirable. Optical moiré artifacts may also occur,which appear as wavy, screenlike, or watermark patterns in the imagedisplayed. Such color banding precludes the usefulness of the microlensarray for both autostereoscopic and planar pass-through purposes.

When the lens sheet is rotated even a small amount with respect to theunderlying display, color banding is diminished and is replaced bymonochrome banding of dark lines, which is also unacceptable for eitherautostereoscopic or planar purposes. Continued incremental rotation ofthe lens sheet reveals a coarse pattern, like that seen when lookingthrough a window screen. Additional rotation reduces the coarseness ofthe pattern to a most acceptable level for both autostereoscopic andplanar pass-through viewing. This residual or irreducible pattern iscalled the “primary pattern noise.” The final step in adjusting theangle is to eliminate secondary pattern noise. Secondary pattern noiseappears as moving moiré-like banding when moving the head in ahorizontal direction. The final position most desirable position calledthe Winnek angle. The Winnek angle mitigates color banding and bothprimary and secondary pattern noise.

Also, by passing images through a blur filter, such as the blur filterin the Adobe Photoshop product, the pass-through effect or perceivedresolution may be heightened. Modern video boards employ ananti-aliasing algorithm producing a similar result in which there ispixel averaging, especially for diagonal lines or edges, to promote theappearance of a smooth, continuous line. Pixel averaging can beaccomplished by similar techniques—blurring or anti-aliasing. Blurringor anti-aliasing can provide the highest possible pass-through apparentor subjective sharpness or image quality in the planar mode.

Optimized resolution of the planar pass-through image is thus a functionof the native resolution of the display, the pitch of the microlensarray, the Winnek angle, and the employed blurring or anti-aliasingmethod. The pass-through resolution may be stated in terms of thetraditional horizontal by vertical pixel count, or a pass-through pixeleffective aggregate may be defined. For example, a pixel in the planarmode is usually made up of three rectangular sub-pixels, red green, andblue, together forming a square pixel. The lens sheet at the Winnekangle, together with its pitch, and the blurring or anti-aliasingfactor, produces a new “super pixel” which is larger than the originalplanar pixel, and of a different shape because of the properties of thelens sheet and blurring or anti-aliasing employed. Thus, a combinationof both optical and software techniques results in optimizing thepass-though quality of the planar image.

FIG. 1 illustrates the StereoGraphics SynthaGram™ autostereoscopicdisplay, including a flat panel display 101 with a microlens array 102located thereon. The display unit consists of an array of pixelsarranged such that the dots making up individual pixels can be preciselymapped, and therefore lined up with lenticular elements of the microlensarray. Most current color flat-panel displays have pixels made up ofred, green, and blue sub-pixel elements, as stated above. In theSynthaGram™ implementation, the lenticules of the microlens array 102are slanted, with a Winnek angle ω 103, where the angle is measured fromthe vertical, here somewhere between 5 degrees and 30 degrees.

FIG. 2 shows what is happening underneath the microlens array, in across-section that includes just a small portion of a single pixel row.Element 201 is one particular lenticule. This lenticule directs graphicsinformation originating from the small portion of the display underneaththat lenticule outward across a viewing zone that fans out away from thedisplay. The display presents that graphics information as pixels 202.

The base of the particular lenticule 201 may be divided up into slicescalled “sub-lenticular zones” or “image stripes.” Since there aremultiple source-view images that form an autostereoscopic view (andprecisely nine in the SynthaGram™ implementation), the base of thelenticule may be divided into that number of sub-lenticular zones,numbered 0 through 8 in the Nine-tile example. The middle sub-lenticularzone, number 4, element 203 in FIG. 2, represents the portion of thelenticule base that needs to obtain graphics content originating fromthe middle source-view image, half-way between maximum right-side andleft-side views. StereoGraphics Interzig software causes the source-viewimage data presented by each individual sub-pixel to match thesub-lenticular zone that rests on top of that sub-pixel.

FIG. 3 further illustrates how a lenticule directs pixel information outinto different directions in viewing space, given that a particularpixel or sub-pixel resides under a portion of the lenticule. In FIG. 3,the lenticule 301 has three full pixels underneath as well as smallpieces of two other pixels. In this example, the pixel being comprisedof three sub-pixels is of no import. One pixel 302 is labeled C. Thecenter of pixel 302 lies toward the right side of the lenticule, in therange of sub-lenticule zones that represent source views farther fromcenter. Light rays 303 radiate within the lenticule and emerge from thelenticule, the light rays entering viewer space 304 in a generaldirection different from the general direction of light rays emanatingfrom pixels A and B. Light rays coming from pixel A end up radiatingrightward 305, while light rays coming from pixel C emerge from thelenticule radiating leftward. The person viewing the display willpreferably be positioned such that his or her left eye views graphicsinformation from pixel C (carrying graphics from a left-view sourceimage), and the right eye views graphics from pixel A (with graphicsfrom a right-view source image).

The foregoing description outlines how lenticular displays are able toconvey stereoscopic imagery. It is beneficial for a single display toclearly show stereoscopic images as well as planar text and graphics.The effective display resolution for both stereoscopic and planar imagesare of particular concern, when such images are viewed through amicrolens array to achieve the maximum planar pass-through. A microlensarray somewhat matches the original native display resolution, and thepresent discussion will attempt to quantify an effective displayresolution for the design.

The present design begins with an unslanted lens sheet having a Winnekangle of 0 degrees. The lenticules are aligned parallel to the display'spixel column, the columns being vertical-going. In this case thevertical resolution is not reduced at all, but the horizontal resolutionis reduced to equal the number of lenticular elements spanning thedisplay width (assuming that fewer lenticular elements exist than pixelsper row). Thus, the effective resolution is:

(X/d,Y)  (1)

where (X, Y) is the native resolution, and d is the pixel density inpixels per lenticule, arrived at by dividing the pixel density per unitlength by the lenticular density per unit length. Pixel density ismeasured horizontally and lenticular density measured perpendicular tothe lenticular axis. This refers to whole pixels, not sub-pixels ordots. If X referred instead to sub-pixels and d to sub-pixels perlenticule, X/d works out to the same result.

One of the objectives of slanting the lenticules with a non-zero Winnekangle is to distribute the resolution reduction across both horizontaland vertical dimensions. With an optimal or near-optimal Winnek angle,the resolution reduction, equal to a factor of (1/d), is applied equallyto both the vertical and horizontal dimensions, meaning that eachdimension will have its resolution reduced by a factor of (1/√{squareroot over (d)}). A high Winnek angle of 45 degrees is not needed toachieve this. Given that the subpixel density is higher horizontallythan vertically, optimal settings occur at more reasonable slant angles.With the Winnek angle optimized, the effective resolution becomes:

$\begin{matrix}\left( {\frac{X}{\sqrt{d}},\frac{Y}{\sqrt{d}}} \right) & (2)\end{matrix}$

For example, if the native display resolution is 1600×1200 pixels andthere are 2.5 pixels per lenticule, the effective resolution is obtainedby dividing native resolution by √{square root over (2.5)}, which is1.58, resulting in an effective resolution of 1012×759. Although thedefinition of acceptable “effective resolution” is somewhat subjective,this formula yields a reasonable approximation of usefulautostereoscopic display resolution.

The display is divided up into super-pixels that make up the effectiveresolution. In the above example, 1012×759 super-pixels fill thedisplay. While these super-pixels are representative, on average, ofwhat appears as a unit of pixel data for the lenticular display, theyare not actually discrete groupings of sub-pixels or dots.

The effective resolution arrived at above is a best-case result, andassumes not only that an optimum Winnek angle has been chosen, but alsothat the lenticular optics convey the underlying image data efficiently.For an autostereoscopic display, the most efficient application of theoptical system is to accurately direct, into any given slice of viewingspace, only the sub-pixel information relevant to the source-view imagethat should be seen in that slice of viewing space.

However, for planar viewing through a lenticular screen, best-caseoptical behavior is different. Every native pixel is desirably visible,or represented, for both of the user's eyes. With respect to FIG. 3, abest-case would have the person viewing the display see all of thepixels, A, B, and C, with their left eye right eyes, but the propertiesof the microlens, as discussed, do not permit such viewing. Thebest-case (given the limitation that the effective resolution is made upof super-pixels) would be for each super-pixel to display a consensus,or averaging, of the underlying native pixels, rather than a selectionfrom the available native sub-pixels. If this best-case were realized,the effective pass-through resolution would remain:

$\left( {\frac{X}{\sqrt{d}},\frac{Y}{\sqrt{d}}} \right).$

For the worst case, if each super-pixel is used to convey only aperfectly focused narrow selection from beneath it, the super-pixelwould need to be enlarged further in order to offer a morerepresentative sampling of the underlying pixel information. If aparticular lenticule covers d pixels but is only representing one of thepixels, an adequate sampling for the planar super-pixel is d lenticulesper super-pixel, or when implemented with an optimal Winnek angle,√{square root over (d)} lenticules per super-pixel in each dimension.Thus, the worst-case effective resolution for planar viewing through alenticular screen is:

$\left( {\frac{X}{\sqrt{d}\sqrt{d}},\frac{Y}{\sqrt{d}\sqrt{d}}} \right)\mspace{14mu} {or}\mspace{14mu} {\left( {\frac{X}{d},\frac{Y}{d}} \right).}$

To put this differently, the pass-through resolution for planar viewingis:

$\begin{matrix}\left( {\frac{X}{\sqrt{ds}},\frac{Y}{\sqrt{ds}}} \right) & (3)\end{matrix}$

where the variable s represents the sampling factor, s=1 being thebest-case situation, and s=d being worst-case.

Returning to the example where the native resolution is 1600×1200 andd=2.5, the best-case planar effective resolution remains equal to thestereoscopic effective resolution, 1012×759, but the worst-case planarresolution is a rather poor 640×480. Best-case effective resolution forlenticular display planar implementations is of course preferred.

The key to approaching the best-case for planar viewing is what istermed “pixel bleed-through.” Implementations of the optical modelillustrated in FIG. 3 have imperfections that may be exploited forimproving planar pass-through.

One example of such an imperfection is shown in FIG. 2. Toward the rightof FIG. 2, a middle (green) sub-pixel 202 resides for the most partbeneath sub-lenticular zone #4. The Interzig process insures that thissub-pixel carries information from the middle source-view image, and aviewer whose eye is in a middle viewing zone is presumed to see lightfrom this particular sub-pixel. By contrast, sub-lenticular zone #5 alsosits on top of a portion of that same green sub-pixel. As a result, aviewer's eye positioned in a viewing zone appropriate for seeinginformation from source-view image #5 will actually see at least somepixel information derived from source-view #4. This phenomenon, wheresome pixel information is partly misdirected to a viewing zone where itis not supposed to go is an example of bleed-through.

The bleed-through concept may apply to sub-pixels or whole pixels,depending on the context. With respect to bleed-through as it relates tostereoscopic quality, it is useful to consider bleed-through betweenindividual sub-pixels, which carry source-view information distinct fromneighboring sub-pixels. When discussing planar viewing (which mostcritically involves black-on-white text), bleed-through between wholepixels is more appropriate.

As illustrated above, bleed-through is most common between adjacentdisplay elements. In the above example, a green sub-pixel bleeds throughfrom sub-lenticular zone #4 to sub-lenticular zone #5, calledfirst-order bleed-through. Second-order and third-order bleed-through(for example, resulting from optical aberrations in the micro-lensarray) may also occur, such as where sub-lenticular zone #5 receivessome information that was primarily intended for sub-lenticular zone #1.

Bleed-through, while generally undesirable for lenticular stereoscopy(though it can serve to smooth out judder between perspective views,moiré, and other pattern artifacts), can be tolerated to some extent.With planar text and graphics, however, bleed-through is a helpfulattribute. Bleed-through can help spread out pixel information thatwould otherwise be directed selectively to narrow slices of the viewingspace. Such information is now spread broadly across more of the viewingspace.

For the best quality planar viewing through a microlens array, as muchbleed-through as possible is beneficial (at least up to the point wherethe selection variable, s, can be brought down to or near a value of1.0), particularly from sources and methods that can be selectivelyapplied only at times when good planar viewing is desired.

Several sources of bleed-through commonly exist in a lenticular displayconfiguration, some occurring naturally and others that can beintroduced to the system.

One major source of bleed-through comes from imperfect sub-lenticularjuxtaposition. Such bleed-through commonly occurs when display elements(pixels or sub-pixels) and the sub-lenticular zones that are placedabove those display elements do not match perfectly. Such a phenomenonis shown in FIG. 2, where the pixels and sub-pixels 202 have boundariesthat do not at all match the boundaries of the sub-lenticular zone 203.

Bleed-through from sub-lenticular juxtaposition may be quantified. Ifthere are z sub-lenticular zones (in the Nine Tile format, z=9), and thedensity (pixels per lenticule) is d, all d pixel borders underneath anygiven lenticule may be assumed to be less than perfect, meaning that dof the z sub-lenticular zones each share (2/d) of the underlying nativepixel data. Meanwhile, the other (z−d) sub-lenticular zones are leftwith only (1/d) of the native pixel data. Thus, on average,

$\frac{{2d} + \left( {z - d} \right)}{dz},{{or}\mspace{14mu} \frac{d + z}{dz}}$

pixels are shared by any given sub-lenticule. The sampling factor, s,equals the reciprocal of that:

$\begin{matrix}{s = \frac{dz}{d + z}} & (4)\end{matrix}$

Returning to the example where d is 2.5 and z=9, from Equation 4 s=1.96.Recalling that s=d is worst-case and s=1 is best case, this value of s,1.96, is some improvement compared to the worst case.

From several of the above formulas, a lower density value d,representing pixels per lenticule, improves both the best-case effectiveresolution as well as the selection value s. Therefore, the opticaldesign can realize increased bleed-through and improved planar viewingby decreasing the lenticule size relative to pixel size. For example, ifd is reduced from 2.5 to 2.3, best-case effective resolution increasesfrom 1012×759 to 1055×791, while the s value drops from 1.96 to 1.83,both of which will improve the effective resolution for planar viewing.Too low a density value will degrade stereoscopic quality due toinsufficient discrete image views underneath each lenticule. The designcan employ different lenticular pitch values to regulate the amount ofbleed-through while maintaining excellent stereoscopic quality.

A particularly effective way to introduce bleed-through to improveplanar viewing through a microlens array is to introduce blurring to thepixel data. Such blurring may be introduced by software. The system canspread out a pixel's information among neighboring pixels when thepixel's information is desired to be visible throughout all viewingzones. FIG. 4 illustrates this aspect. The system begins start with apixel representation of the letter ‘e’ 401, where all elements of theletter consist of but one pixel 404. By running the letter through alow-pass (blur) filter, the result is letter 402, where the pixel datahas plenty of bleed-through. The bottom stroke of the letter ‘e’,originally one pixel thick 404, has its information spread out betweenthree different pixel rows 405 in the blurred (or anti-aliased) version.

With respect to adding blurring to the mathematical model, thebleed-through factor (b) represent the number of additionalsub-lenticular zones. Information from one original sub-lenticular zonecan be expanded to cover more viewing space. b=0 denotes no blurring,while b=1 represents blurring such that one sub-lenticule zone'sinformation has been effectively spread between one full additionalsub-lenticular zone. The b value need not be an integer, but could beany whole or fractional value greater than 0. Bearing in mind theequations used to derive s above, the d sub-lenticular zones containingpixel borders now cover (2+b) underlying pixels, while the other (z−d)sub-lenticular zones cover (1+b) pixels. Thus, the averagesub-lenticular zone covers:

$\frac{{\left( {2 + b} \right)d} + {\left( {1 + b} \right)\left( {z - d} \right)}}{dz},{{or}\mspace{14mu} \frac{d + {\left( {1 + b} \right)z}}{dz}},$

with the sampling factor once again equaling the reciprocal,

$\begin{matrix}{s = \frac{dz}{d + {\left( {1 + b} \right)z}}} & (5)\end{matrix}$

Applying a significant blur effect of b=1.0, and with d=2.5 and z=9 onceagain, yields s=1.1, which approaches the best case (1.0) for effectiveplanar resolution. If the system computes an s value less than 1.0, sucha value will not help, as s=1 already realizes the best case. Based onEquation (5), an appropriate amount of digital blur can result ingreatly improved monoscopic readability.

Applying a low-pass digital filter generates the blur effect shown inelement 402 of FIG. 4. Bleed-through may be introduced in other ways,resulting in similar effects to the blur shown in 402. These effects canbe quantified in the above formula as part of the b value.

Another effect is anti-aliasing, which is similar to blurring, butaccomplished differently. Anti-aliasing is a digital averagingtechnique, where a graphical element that does not precisely fit theexisting pixel grid is drawn using varying pixel intensities, based onhow well the graphical element being drawn fits the pixel grid. Forexample, a black vertical line that coincides with a pixel columnappears as a black pixel column, while a black vertical line thatstraddles two pixel columns is drawn as two adjacent medium-graycolumns. With reference to the example of FIG. 4, a letter 401 whosefeatures are one pixel thick 401 is shown. By digitally downscaling theletter and then digitally rescaling the letter to its original size, thesystem produces an anti-aliased representation of the letter 403 whoselinear features 406 are two pixels thick, effectively doublingbleed-through.

Anti-aliasing has the potential to offer a b value of up to 1.0, lessthan the potential b value that can be achieved from a low-pass filter,but substantial enough to greatly improve the selection value (s).

Another source of bleed-through originates from slanting the lenticules.Compared to vertical lenticules, slanted lenticules tend to increasebleed-through. FIG. 5 presents a single lenticule 501 with its basedivided up into nine sub-lenticular zones 502. A grid of pixels 503 isalso shown, with four rows having six pixels per row. Square 504represents one of the pixels in one of the four rows. The system drawsthe nine sub-lenticular zones 505 on top of the grid. Looking at theupper-left pixel 504, the area is partly covered by three differentsub-lenticular zones. The bottom edge of this pixel includes twosub-lenticular zones. Were it not for the slant, pixel 504 might onlyhave been covered by two sub-lenticular zones. The bleed-through valuefrom slanted lenticules is proportional to the sine of the Winnek anglew:

b=sin ω  (6)

Equation (6) may be modified to derive s to reflect that b is actually acombination of several b values:

$\begin{matrix}{s = \frac{dz}{d + {\left( {1 + b_{combined}} \right)z}}} & (7)\end{matrix}$

If there are bleed-through values from several different sources, thesemay be combined using Equation (8):

b _(combined)=√{square root over (b ₁ ² +b ₂ ² +b ₃ ²+ . . . )}  (8)

To use one of many possible examples, if four different b values derivefrom digital blur filtering, anti-aliasing, slanted lenticules, and fromoptical imperfections,

$\begin{matrix}{b_{combined} = \sqrt{b_{blur}^{2} + b_{antialias}^{2} + b_{slant}^{2} + b_{optics}^{2}}} & (9)\end{matrix}$

would be the result.

For a more specific example, assume a bleed-through value of 0.7 fromanti-aliasing, and a Winnek angle of 20 degrees that yields ableed-through value of sin(20 degrees), the combined b value is √{squareroot over ((0.7)²+sin²(20°))}{square root over ((0.7)²+sin²(20°))},which is 0.78. Applying a b value of 0.78 to the example where d=2.5 andz=9 results in a sampling value (s) of 1.2, which approaches thebest-case value of 1.0.

Such a value of (s) can be applied to the formula

$\begin{matrix}\left( {\frac{X}{\sqrt{ds}},\frac{Y}{\sqrt{ds}}} \right) & (10)\end{matrix}$

to give an effective planar resolution of 924×693 (from 1600×1200native), not significantly worse than the calculated best-case effectiveresolution of

$\left( {\frac{X}{\sqrt{d}},\frac{Y}{\sqrt{d}}} \right),$

or 1012×759.

Another general source of bleed-through is imperfect optics. Numeroussources of bleed-through exist because optical elements do not behaveexactly as the idealized representation in FIG. 3. Aside from thepossibility of design and manufacturing defects and/or imperfecttolerances, practical considerations constrain the design to use simplesingle element lenses with a cylindrical arc cross-section.Additionally, light rays travel between different lenticules, causingfurther problems. FIG. 3 shows pixel E 306 residing under a neighboringlenticule. Inevitably, some of the light rays from pixel E cross overinto lenticule 301 and exit from its curved surface, very likely in adifferent direction than light rays traveling out of the lenticularsurface directly above pixel E. Additional optical bleed-through mayoccur due to refraction, and perhaps internal reflection. Such opticalbleed-through may be difficult or impossible to correct.

In addition to intrinsic optical imperfections, imperfections may beintentionally introduced into the design. Such imperfections may reduceartifacts (for stereoscopic and planar uses), and may also increasebleed-through for improved planar viewing. One technique is to defocusthe lens elements slightly. Moving the focal plane of the lens elementsbehind the pixel plane, as opposed to in front of the pixel plane, canproduce good results. FIG. 6 comprises two lenticule models, FIG. 6A andFIG. 6B. Each lenticule model is a single lenticule (601A and 601B) witha pixel plane (602A and 602B) beneath the lenticule. In FIG. 6A, thelenticule has its focal point 603A at the pixel plane. Following lightrays 604A that start at a particular point source results in the lightrays exiting the lenticule traveling in roughly the same direction 605A.A human eye positioned in a particular viewer space location willperceive graphics data coming from one particular point underneath thislenticular cross-section.

FIG. 6B offers a similar lenticule 601B to the one in FIG. 6A, exceptwith optics that are focused 603B behind the pixel plane 602B. Startingin viewing space and following the same parallel light rays 605B backthrough the lenticule 604B, where the light rays converge within andunderneath the lenticule, the range of light rays now overlaps portionsof two different pixels 606B. The result is that the eye in viewer spacesees a bleed-through of two different pixels. This bleed-through gives agreater range of sub-lenticular zone pixel data being visible from anygiven location in viewing space. Defocusing can be done moderately,adding some bleed-through for planar viewing (and to soften artifactsfor stereoscopic viewing), without the bleed-through being so excessiveto degrade stereoscopic quality.

The amount of bleed-through from various sources of optical imperfectionmay be quantified as different bleed-through (b) values, combinedtogether with each other and/or with b values from other sources, usingthe

b _(combined)=√{square root over (b ₁ ² +b ₂ ² +b ₃ ²+ . . . )}

formula, and applied to derive the sampling factor (s) using theEquations and formulas described above.

An additional technique may be used to improve planar viewing, one thatdoes not affect stereoscopic viewing quality. Reducing the d value,which expresses the number of pixels per lenticule, not only improvesthe best-case effective resolution, but also reduces the sampling value(s), allowing the effective resolution to better approach the best case.The design may use a finer lenticular pitch, though this may come at theexpense of stereoscopic quality. Another approach is to make the pixelslarger. Even though the pixels are of a fixed size on a particulardisplay, effective pixel size may be increased using a scaling function.

For example, FIG. 5 shows a 6×4 pixel grid section 503, where a samplepixel 504 included portions of three different sub-lenticular zones.Scaling by 200 percent, for example, in each dimension may beaccomplished as shown in FIG. 7. FIG. 7 shows the same lenticularelement 701 and sub-lenticular zones 702 as is presented in FIG. 5, butall of the display content has been scaled, double-sizing the pixelssuch that each “pixel” is made up of four original pixels. Whereas theconstruction originally included a 6×4 pixel grid, the device now has a3×2 grid 703. Once again, the sub-lenticular zones 705 are drawn on topof the grid. Now, a sample “pixel” 704 spans portions of six differentsub-lenticular zones, ⅔ of the total.

Any given flat panel display has a native pixel resolution, representingthe actual number of full-color display elements that make up thescreen. For example, a flat panel device with 1200 rows of RGBdot-groups, each row having 1600 sets of RGB sub-pixels, is said to havea native pixel resolution of 1600×1200. Recognizing that some users mayhave different viewing or performance preferences, video card vendorshave added a scaling capability to enable a display with a nativeresolution to show a desktop view that has fewer than the native numberof pixels.

For example, a display with a native resolution of 1600×1200 might beconfigured to display a 1280×960 desktop. In this case, each of the 1280desktop “pixels” in a particular row is represented by 1.33 actualpixels. Or, put differently, each pixel, out of the 1600 in a nativepixel row, covers 0.75 of the width of a desktop “pixel”.

Unfortunately, such an implementation does not have the potential toimprove the lenticular display's best-case effective resolution, sincethe microlens array remains unchanged. However, the d value in this caseis changed and is used to derive s, the selection value. Therefore,using Equation (7) to derive s,

${s = \frac{dz}{d + {\left( {1 + b_{combind}} \right)z}}},$

and replacing d with d/n, where n is the desktop scaling factor yields:

$\begin{matrix}{s = \frac{\left( {d/n} \right)z}{\left( {d/n} \right) + {\left( {1 + b_{combined}} \right)z}}} & (11)\end{matrix}$

where n is the native horizontal pixel resolution divided by thehorizontal display resolution in the rescaled desktop.

The newly reduced desktop resolution puts a limit on the display'seffective resolution. In other words, if the original best-caseeffective resolution is the native resolution with each dimensiondivided by √{square root over (d)}, and the rescaled desktop resolutionis less than that, the best-case effective resolution is the lesser ofthe two, or the rescaled desktop resolution. Thus the optimal desktopresolution, after rescaling, for planar viewing through a lenticularscreen, uses the same equation that was used to calculate the best-caseeffective resolution:

$\left( {\frac{X}{\sqrt{d}},\frac{Y}{\sqrt{d}}} \right)$

where (X,Y) is the display's native resolution.

For example, a 1600×1200 display with a lenticular screen having amicrolens density of 2.5 pixels per lenticule has the potential to lookbest in planar mode if the desktop is rescaled to

$\left( {\frac{1600}{\sqrt{2.5}},\frac{1200}{\sqrt{2.5}}} \right),$

or 1012×759. If the video driver of the board employed did not offerthat desktop resolution as an option it would be better to select avalue on the higher side than the lower side. This is not an issue inthe case of designing a dedicated device, for example, a scaling chip ina television set.

The video card and its driver perform desktop rescaling to the newresolution. In order for this to occur smoothly, without the jarringeffect of having some pixel rows and columns being double thick, thegraphics driver applies anti-aliasing to all desktop pixel information.

Such a design implements two of the most effective bleed-through methodsdiscussed above, anti-aliasing and scaling the original data. Thescaling effectively gives a significant decrease in the number of pixelsper lenticule, which increases bleed-through by letting moresub-lenticular zones share identical pixel data. The anti-aliasingeffect, even with just a moderate amount of desktop scaling, adds atleast one pixel in thickness to most features. Given that most on-screentext partly or entirely uses single-pixel line thickness, applying anyamount of anti-aliasing will typically double the number ofsub-lenticular zones carrying views of the text. Throughout thisdisclosure the example of text has been employed for didactic purposes.The concept applies equally well to non-alphanumeric image features.

The combination of these two bleed-through methods, along with otherbleed-through sources, can result in excellent readability and overallimprovements in pass-through when a lenticular display is used withplanar content.

Finally, the bleed-through effects derived from video driver enableddesktop scaling are temporary. When a user wants to go back tostereoscopic viewing, where excessive bleed-through is undesirable,returning the display to native resolution eliminates the use of thesebleed-through methods.

Having a display that performs well in both planar and stereoscopicdisplay modes, particularly one whose hardware and/or software offers anautomated switch between the two modes, provides an effective devicewherein graphics content can communicate to the display system whetherthe current content should be displayed in planar or stereoscopic mode.

FIG. 8 demonstrates one possible implementation. On the left is a screen801 containing typical windowed planar computer data 802, perhapsincluding text, file system information, and some non-stereoscopicgraphics elements. On the right, another screen includes 3D imagery 803,which may be rendered stereoscopically and Interzigged forautostereoscopic viewing through the microlens array.

At least two techniques could be used to distinguish image frames thatcontain 3D imagery from image frames that contain 2D imagery. The firsttechnique involves the inclusion of “meta-data” in the headerinformation of the frame. For example, the JPEG image format defines aseries of markers, which are included in the file to describe“non-pixel” information about the file. A marker could be signifyingthat the current file contains 3D data. These markers are typicallyignored by most JPEG processing applications. A JPEG processingapplication may be employed that knows about the 3D data marker. Oncethe 3D data marker is detected, such a system interdigitates the framebefore displaying the frame.

A second technique is to include a “flag” in the image portion of theframe. Such a flag allows an application processing the frame to detectthat the frame contains 3D imagery. This technique is necessary becausemany file formats do not provide a “meta-data” area in them. Also,restrictions exist in content creation tools that limit the authoring of3D imagery to just the pixel content. Hence a “this field contains 3Dimagery flag” is a beneficial addition to the frame content.

Several attributes are needed by the flag to accomplish the desiredgoal. The flag is generally easily and reliably detected by an imagereading application. The flag should be unobtrusive such that when theimage is displayed by a “non-flag-aware” application, the image appearsvirtually the same as without the flag. Lastly, because the frame can belossy compressed and uncompressed, the flag is able to detected even ifslightly altered.

At the bottom of the screen in FIG. 8 is a colored zone 804. Zone 804has three sections defining a “flag” that communicates to the graphicssubsystem that the screen is to be displayed autostereoscopically. Inthis example, the flag is a few pixel-rows thick, and divided into threeregions, one filling the left ¼ of those rows, one filling the middle ½of the rows, and the other filling the right ¼ of the rows. The flag maybe a particular color or colors, such as blue for the left and rightregions, and black for the center region.

In this example, the presence of the flag indicates that the screenshould be displayed autostereoscopically, and the absence of the flagindicates that the screen consists of planar content.

Detecting the flag when the field is uncompressed is a straightforwardtask. A brute force approach would examine each pixel in the zone forthe appropriate color (e.g. RGB=(0,0,255) or RGB=(0,0,0)) and thendetermine that the flag is present, if all pixels in the zone werecorrect.

A less-conservative, but more efficient method would be to spot-checkthe zone, perhaps by sampling every N pixels where N is determined bydividing the width by a fixed number. For example if the image width is1280, and N is 20, then the system checks 1280/20=64 locations on eachline in the zone. A similar strategy could be used along the height ofthe zone. Checking just the bottom line in the zone is adequate.

If the field is compressed, a more tolerant flag-checking algorithm maybe needed because a lossy compression changes the original cleanlydefined flag into a flag blurred together with the surrounding image. Weare presuming here standard block-like compression schemes, which arealso used in most image and movie codecs.

In the currently described flag, the least blurred line is on the bottomof the zone. The bottom line of the zone is at the bottom of the imageand no blurring of image data from the bottom direction can occur. Thusa flag has a height of several lines rather than a single line on thebottom. With a height of several lines, the bottom line is insulatedfrom any surrounding blurring.

Rather than checking for an exact match of the colors, an acceptabledeviation is allowed. For example rather than checking exactly forRGB=(0,0,255), a check of R less than 70, G less than 70, and B greaterthan 160, would suffice. Spot-checking this bottom row at 32 locationsis generally adequate for reliable flag detection.

The form of the flag, or visual flag, is not important. Some kind offlag, imbedded in the screen's content, is available for indicating orflagging whether the screen content should appear in planar orstereoscopic mode. A process connected to the graphics subsysteminterprets the flag or the absence thereof and switches the displaydriver accordingly. Alternately, a device that physically alters thedisplay hardware may be employed. Embedding such an index functionwithin metadata is an option with certain types of signals, for example,where the metadata function is exposed to the developer.

One possible example of such an implementation is a software functionthat, recognizing a switch from stereoscopic content to planar content,causes the video driver to rescale the desktop, improving planar viewingby increasing bleed-through due to the combined effects of increasedpixel size and anti-aliased processing of pixel data. When the flaggingindicates the need to switch back to autostereoscopic display mode, thisprocess may be reversed.

A general conceptual illustration of the design is presented in FIG. 9.From FIG. 9, data is generally made available in the form of multipleviews, such as nine views. The nine views are interdigitated or combinedat point 901. The interdigitated views, or autostereoscopic image orimages, may be fed to the display 902 via lower path 903. If a switchoccurs to planar mode, either by user input, computer switching, or bythe metadata or flagging mechanisms described above, the conceptualswitch 904 switches to planar mode.

Prior to performing the processing shown in FIG. 9, certain physicalattributes may have already been implemented. For example, the lenticuleslant is a fixed mechanical display attribute, presumably provided withthe display and invariant unless the display is disassembled andrebuilt, which is impractical. Thus when constructing such a display,the Winnek angle may be computed as disclosed herein, and the lenticulesslanted at an angle based on the Winnek angle and depending on othercircumstances described, such as pixel density. Further, based on theoptics employed and the imperfection of those optics, certainbleed-through may exist that helps, harms, or does nothing to displayperformance. These physical factors are in place prior to the processingof FIG. 9 and may be accounted for in such processing.

In planar mode, the processing may divide the display space into aplurality of super pixels and compute super pixel dimensions and superpixel data at point 905. Point 906 reflects selectively employingbleed-through to spread out and/or enhance super pixel data. Point 907calls for selectively introducing blurring to the super pixel data,while point 908 selectively employs anti-aliasing to the super pixeldata. Point 909 computes the resolution based on the equations discussedherein, and point 910 implements the resolution, such as by a video cardor other appropriate device. The resultant image is transmitted to thedisplay, and provides a best planar image to the display based on thephysical attributes and characteristics of the display.

The present design is generally hardware independent in the sense thatthe display processing, both autostereoscopic and planar, may occur onany general high performance computational architecture or hardwareavailable. The display processing disclosed herein may encompassprocessing on a general purpose or specialized high performance computerknown generally to those skilled in the art.

By the means discussed here we have described technology for creatingthe best possible autostereoscopic display with maximized pass-throughin the planar mode using a combination of technologies suitable for awide variety of display applications such as computer graphics for thedesktop, digital signage for advertising, or for a home televisionappliance.

The design presented herein and the specific aspects illustrated aremeant not to be limiting, but may include alternate components whilestill incorporating the teachings and benefits of the invention, namelythe autostereoscopic display system with planar pass-through. While theinvention has thus been described in connection with specificembodiments thereof, it will be understood that the invention is capableof further modifications. This application is intended to cover anyvariations, uses or adaptations of the invention following, in general,the principles of the invention, and including such departures from thepresent disclosure as come within known and customary practice withinthe art to which the invention pertains.

The foregoing description of specific embodiments reveals the generalnature of the disclosure sufficiently that others can, by applyingcurrent knowledge, readily modify and/or adapt the system and method forvarious applications without departing from the general concept.Therefore, such adaptations and modifications are within the meaning andrange of equivalents of the disclosed embodiments. The phraseology orterminology employed herein is for the purpose of description and not oflimitation.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for presenting both autostereoscopicimages and planar images in a single display, comprising: processing theplanar images received in the form of planar image data, comprising atleast one from a group comprising: selectively employing bleed-throughprocessing to enhance the planar image data when viewed through a lenssheet comprising slanted lenticules; selectively introducing blurringinto the planar image data; and selectively employing anti-aliasprocessing to the planar image data.
 2. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising employing a mode switch indicator comprising one from a groupcomprising: Metadata indicating mode switching is desired; and a visibleflag indicating mode switching is desired; wherein employing the modeswitch indicator causes switching between autostereoscopic and planardisplay modes.
 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: computingoverall resolution of data received; and implementing the resolutioncomputed for displaying on the display; wherein said computing andimplementing occur subsequent to said planar image processing.
 4. Themethod of claim 1, wherein said selectively introducing blurringcomprises lowpass filtering the image data.
 5. The method of claim 1,wherein said processing comprises: initially dividing display space forthe display into a plurality of super pixels; computing super pixeldimensions; and computing planar image data based on super pixeldimensions.
 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising at least onefrom a group comprising: computing a Winnek angle for lenticules to beemployed with the display; and computing lenticule slant differing fromthe Winnek angle for lenticules to be employed with the display; whereinWinnek angle computing and lenticule slant computing occur before saidprocessing, and said processing accounts for Winnek angle and lenticuleslant.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein said processing accounts forbleed-through resulting from imperfect optics employed with lenticulesused with the display.
 8. A system for providing autostereoscopic imagesand planar images, comprising: a display configured to receiveautostereoscopic and planar images; a lens sheet positioned proximatethe display comprising a plurality of lenticules slanted at an anglefrom vertical; and a processor configured to process the planar imagesreceived in the form of planar image data, said processor configured toperform at least one from a group comprising: selectively employbleed-through processing to enhance the planar image data when viewedthrough the lens sheet; selectively introduce blurring into the planarimage data; and selectively employ anti-alias processing to the planarimage data.
 9. The system of claim 8, wherein the processor is furtherconfigured to employ a mode switch indicator comprising one from a groupcomprising: Metadata indicating mode switching is desired; and a visibleflag indicating mode switching is desired; wherein employing the modeswitch indicator causes switching between autostereoscopic and planardisplay modes.
 10. The system of claim 8, wherein the processor isfurther configured to compute overall resolution of data received, andthe system further comprises computer hardware configured to implementthe resolution computed for displaying on the display.
 11. The system ofclaim 8, wherein said selectively introducing blurring comprises lowpassfiltering the image data.
 12. The system of claim 8, wherein theprocessor is further configured to: initially divide display space forthe display into a plurality of super pixels; compute super pixeldimensions; and compute planar image data based on super pixeldimensions.
 13. The system of claim 8, wherein lenticule slant for thelens sheet comprises computing a Winnek angle for the lenticules andcomputing any lenticule slant differing from the Winnek angle based onplanar image characteristics.
 14. The system of claim 13, wherein theprocessor is further configured to account for bleed-through resultingfrom imperfect optics employed with lenticules used with the display.15. A method for displaying autostereoscopic images in anautostereoscopic mode and planar images in a planar mode of a display,comprising: computing a set of initial parameters based on physicalcharacteristics of a lens sheet employed with the display; andprocessing the planar images received in the form of planar image data,said processing comprising at least one from a group comprising:selectively employing bleed-through processing to enhance the planarimage data when viewed through the lens sheet; selectively introducingblurring into the planar image data; and selectively employinganti-alias processing to the planar image data.
 16. The method of claim15, wherein said bleed-through processing comprises spreading out pixelinformation among neighboring pixels.
 17. The method of claim 15,wherein blurring comprises spreading out a pixel's information amongneighboring pixels when the pixel's information is to be visiblethroughout all viewing zones.
 18. The method of claim 16, whereinanti-alias processing comprises digitally averaging planar image data.19. The method of claim 18, wherein digitally averaging comprisesdrawing a graphical element that does not precisely fit an existingpixel grid using varying pixel intensities based on how well thegraphical element being drawn fits the pixel grid.